Well, that’s the problem. Getting someone banned doesn’t bother you, and IRL, getting someone fired doesn’t bother you. Women and men seem to have different perspectives on what penalty fits the crime.
Please PM a mod with your old username and we’ll discuss how to handle.
This isn’t right. There is no set number of warnings or lack of warnings that would result in a banning. It’s a case by case basis. It could be 10, it could be zero.
Who was banned or fired and where was anyone banned or fired and where did I say that wouldn’t bother me?
And WE are being accused of being paranoid and hysterical over nothing?!
Apparently, this has to do with you because it is nothing that went on here at all. If you are getting banned and fired for sexually harrassing women, I would suggest that you stop sexually harassing women.
Bone, it was so long ago I don’t remember it or my email at the time. That’s why I just started over again.
Fruitbat2, can you respond to post 118, please?
Ok this actually made me laugh out loud, well done! 
From a post on a message board about “don’t make off-topic, lewd comments towards women” you take that to such an extreme that all women have no problem getting someone fired in real life.
Bahahahahaha! Dude, get some perspective!
Oh, who were you?
I meant that I didn’t think it was a big deal that someone misspoke in the original thread, the boob job comment. We all misspeak now and then.
Also, please note a mod said it is not true that three warnings equals being banned. I didn’t think it was.
In any case, I really hate myself when I get drawn into argument threads in the first place. It is really so annoying. Next time I get into an argument thread, someone please tell me to get out.
Fair… but couldn’t anyone previously banned who has changed locations claim the same?
I don’t know. That’s not my department.
But the people who won’t accept that there’s anything wrong with such jokes in inappropriate moments don’t care whether the rule they break is don’t be a jerk or don’t make sexual jokes in non-sexual or serious-sexual threads (or whatever the rule is exactly)
From my point of view as an observer to this (i.e. someone who isn’t affected by the rule in any form it takes since I wouldn’t do it even if there wasn’t a rule) it seems to me like the boobygate scandal did more to improve the mods awareness and spur them into treating being a jerk as being a jerk in those cases, than it did to put any new or additional restrictions on posters.
In other words previously there was ample room to moderate such posts under the don’t be a jerk rule but they weren’t being modded to the satisfaction of at least some posters. So the remedy wasn’t really the new rule but stricter moderation of the old rule. In the end it really works out to the same thing so this isn’t a call for a change or anything, just an observation. The board already had a rule against this since the first earliest days.
I’m a big fan of allowing moderators to mod based on context, intent, posting history, etc. and not just black and white ‘automatic warning’ rules.
I maintain that this case was moddable for being a jerk because it was a drive by, random, “booby joke” with no substance or contribution to the thread but that if the very same poster, under the very same circumstances, instead asked “Did you get a boob job or what?” that should not be modded as being a jerk in the context of that particular thread. But I get the feeling it might be modded as a violation of the boobygate rule regardless and to me that completely bypasses the actual spirit of the rule and simply reverts to black and white automatic warning based on keywords found in a post.
ITD hasn’t responded to my post so I don’t know the mod point of view on this but I would wager if she got a complaint about that hypothetical post she would very likely feel bound to enforce the boobygate rule despite any context, intent, etc.
I do wonder why anyone signs up to be a forum mod. It seems quite a thankless task. Thank you, mods.
Sorry! My apologies. I’m not sure which post it was. I’ll go look.
Who said anyone was? Did you imagine it?
Bonding mine. Is this the part you meant?
I agree that the hypothetical in that sentence would not have been modded, all things being equal.
Um, what?
I thought that’s who you were talking about. But that didn’t seem to jibe with the other comments you made. You sure made it seem like that comment was a big deal:
- Clearly, women who object to constantly being reduced to a pair of tits when they’re trying to speak…
…
how old it gets or how sick women get of that being treated to vulgar rudeness when they are trying to speak.
…
as merely being shown basic respect and not subjected to sexual jeering as a matter of course.*
If I thought he made a comment that reduced a poster to a pair of tits, I would think it was a big deal. Or treated her with vulgar rudeness. Or engaged in sexual jeering. But that’s not what happened, so you’re right, his comment wasn’t a big deal.
Unless you’re not specifically talking about Gato, which wouldn’t be fair. He shouldn’t be lumped into a group like that. Not based on that one comment.
Yes that was it. Outstanding thank you.
Nm then 